Taxonomic Swap 70021
(Committed on 2020-01-25)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
@chrisvanswaay Lysandra exists here as a subgenus. Probably not all species are there (some non-European seems to be missing), but hispana is there. I have just merged two existing taxa that are the same (hispanus went to hispana). My first priority is to eliminate such conflicts and duplication.
You think it is reasonable to create Lysandra as a genus? Surely this is in accordance with Wiemers etal (and earlier original papers that used molecular data). The only concern I have is that there are some generic identifications as Polyommatus (with no species indicated), which, in case of Lysandra, will automatically become wrong.
Actually, the same applies to Argynnis/Fabriciana/Speyeria, if we decide to split Argynnis in accordance with the newest classification: most identifications "Argynnis sp." applies to Fabriciana sp. or Speyeria aglaja. Also, I do not know whether users, who became familiar with omnigenus Argynnis, will be happy with such split. I am not saying this is completely unreasonable to do, just discussing.
@kharkovbut I must admit I hadn't thought of that. Not sure if it really matters though, as I can't think of a real use of something as Polyommatus spec. Of course one might argue that at the end for professional use it's not very relevant if the genusname is Lysandra or Polyommatus.
So mixed feelings. Is there a general policy in iNaturalist on this?
@chrisvanswaay I also have mixed feelings. On one hand, there is a temptation to adjust the whole European butterflies taxonomy to Wiemers etal (except possibly gender agreement). On the other hand, I am not sure it is reasonable to do this right now unless we need to fix some "real" problem.
I am not sure about the policies for this particular situation (could ask), but, as far as I understand, it is advised not to make unnecessary taxonomic changes. Of course, the term "necessary" depends on one's point of view. :)
Actually, the corresponding combinations (Lysandra bellargus, L. coridon, etc.) once existed, but were swapped to Polyommatus, probably because of taxa duplication. See. eg., https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=154576 Unfortunately at that moment the choice appeared to be wrong.
To summarize, I am not sure this change should be done right now. We can postpone it for a while. If you have different feeling, we may discuss it further and/or invite others to this discussion.
I agree, lets postpone. Of course cleaning up P hispanus is a good thing anyway.
Wouldn't have been better to switch to Lysandra (as in Wiemers et al)?